10 research) for medical applications, but prohibit its use for heritable genetic modification and reproductive human cloning. In the face of this consensus, Green blithely announces his confidence that humanity “can and will” incorporate heritable genetic enhancement into the “ongoing human adventure.” Well, it’s certainly possible. Our desires for good looks, good brains, wealth and long lives, for ourselves and for our children, are strong and enduring. If the gene-tech entrepreneurs are able to convince us that we can satisfy these desires by buying into genetic modification, perhaps we’ll bite. Green certainly seems eager to encourage us to do so. But he would be wise to listen to what medical students, the great majority of Americans, and the international community appear to be saying: We want all these things, yes, and genetic technology might help us attain them, but we don’t want to run the huge risks to the human community and the human future that would come with altering the genetic basis of our common human nature. 1Tay-Sachs A progressive disorder that destroys nerve neurons in the brain and spinal cord. [Editors’ note.] Topics for Critical Thinking and Writing 1. Do you believe that in his first paragraph, Richard Hayes fairly summarizes Green’s essay? If your answer is no, what are your objections? 2. Does the prospect raised in paragraph 6 frighten you? Why, or why not? 3. In his final paragraph, Hayes speaks of “huge risks.” What are these risks? Are you willing to take them? Why, or why not? Topics for Critical Thinking and Writing 1. What does this photograph seem to say about human genetic modification? Why do you think the photographer included a bar code in the image? In a couple of paragraphs, evaluate this photo’s effectiveness. 2. Do you agree with the point of view expressed in the photograph? In 250 words, write up a description of a photograph that might work as a rebuttal to this one. RICHARD HAYES Born in 1945, Richard Hayes is executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, an organization that describes itself as “working to encourage responsible uses and effective society governance of the new human genetic and reproductive technologies…. The Center supports benign and beneficent medical applications of the new human genetic and reproductive technologies, and opposes those applications that objectify and commodify human life and threaten to divide human society.” This reprinted essay originally appeared in the Washington Post on April 15, 2008. Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks In an essay in Sunday’s Outlook section, Dartmouth ethics professor Ronald Green asks us to consider a neoeugenic future of “designer babies,” with parents assembling their children quite literally from genes selected from a catalogue. Distancing himself from the compulsory, state-sponsored eugenics that darkened the first half of the last century, Green instead celebrates the advent of a liberta ...

1. 10
research) for medical applications, but prohibit its
use for heritable genetic
modification and reproductive human cloning.
In the face of this consensus, Green blithely
announces his confidence
that humanity “can and will”incorporate heritable genetic
enhancement into
the “ongoing human adventure.”
Well, it’s certainly possible. Our desires for good
looks, good brains,
wealth and long lives, for ourselves and for our
children, are strong and
enduring. If the gene-tech entrepreneurs are able to
convince us that we can
satisfy these desires by buying into genetic
modification, perhaps we’llbite.
Green certainly seems eager to encourage us to
do so.
But he would be wise to listen to what medical
students, the great
majority of Americans, and the international
community appear to be saying:
We want all these things, yes, and genetic technology
might help us attain
them, but we don’t want to run the huge risks to
the human community and
the human future that would come with altering

2. the genetic basis of our
common human nature.
1Tay-Sachs A progressive disorder that destroys
nerve neurons in the brainand spinal cord.
[Editors’
note.]
Topics for Critical Thinking and Writing
1. Do you believe that in his first paragraph,
Richard Hayes fairly summarizes Green’s
essay? If
your answer is no, what are your objections?
2. Does the prospect raised in paragraph 6
frighten you? Why, or why not?
3. In his final paragraph, Hayes speaks of
“huge risks.” What are these risks? Are
you willing to
take them? Why, or why not?
Topics for Critical Thinking and Writing
1. What does this photograph seem to say about
human genetic modification? Why do you think
the photographer included a bar code in the image?
In a couple of paragraphs, evaluate this
photo’s effectiveness.
2. Do you agree with the point of view expressed in
the photograph? In 250 words, writeup a
description of a photograph that might work as
a rebuttal to this one.

3. RICHARD HAYES
Born in 1945, Richard Hayes is executive director
of the Center for
Genetics and Society, an organization that describes
itselfas “working to
encourage responsible uses and effective society
governance of the new
human genetic and reproductive technologies….
The Center supports
benign and beneficent medical applications of
the new human genetic and
reproductive technologies, and opposes those
applications that objectify
and commodify human life and threaten to divide
human society.”
This reprinted essay originally appeared in the
Washington Post on
April 15, 2008.
Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks
In an essay in Sunday’s Outlook section,
Dartmouth ethics professor
Ronald Green asks us to consider a neoeugenic
future of “designer babies,”
with parents assembling their children quite literally
from genes selected
from a catalogue. Distancing himself from the
compulsory, state-sponsored
eugenics that darkened the first half of the last
century, Green instead
celebrates the advent of a libertarian, consumer-
driven eugenics motivated

4. by the free play of human desire, technology,
and markets. He argues that
this vision of the human future is desirable
and very likely inevitable.
To put it mildly: I disagree. Granted, new human
genetic technologies
have real potential to help prevent or cure many
terrible diseases, and I
support research directed towards that end. But these
same technologies also
have the potential for real harm. If misapplied,
they would exacerbate
existing inequalities and re-inforce existing modes of
discrimination. If more
widely abused, they could undermine the
foundations of civil and human
5
rights. In the worst case, they could undermine
our experience of being part
of a single human community with a
common human future.
Once we begin genetically modifying our children,
where do we stop? If
it’s acceptable to modify one gene, why not
two, or twenty or two hundred?
At what point do children become artifacts designed to
someone’s
specifications rather than members of a family to
be nurtured?

5. Given what we know about human nature,
the development and
commercial marketing of human genetic modification
would likely spark a
techno-eugenic rat-race. Even parents opposed to
manipulating their
children’s genes would feel compelled to participate
in this race, lest their
offspring be left behind.
Green proposes that eugenic technologies could be
used to reduce “the
class divide.” But nowhere in his essay does he
suggest how such a proposal
might ever be made practicable in the real
world.
The danger of genetic misuse is equally
threatening at the international
level. What happens when some rogue country
announces an ambitious
program to “improve the genetic stock” of its
citizens? In a world still barely
able to contain the forces of nationalism,
ethnocentrism, and militarism, the
last thing we need to worry about is a high-
tech eugenic arms race.
In his essay, Green doesn’t distinguish clearly
between different uses of
genetic technology — and the distinctions are
critical. It’s one thing to
enable a couple to avoid passing on a
devastating genetic condition, such as
Tay-Sachs.1 But it’s a different thing altogether to

6. create children with a host
of “enhanced” athletic, cosmetic, and cognitive traits
that could be passed to
their own children, who in turn could further
genetically modify their
children, who in turn … you get the picture. It’s
this second use of gene
technology (the technical term is “heritable genetic
enhancement”) that
Green most fervently wants us to embrace.
In this position, Green is well outside the
growing national and
international consensus on the proper use of human
genetic science and
technology. To his credit, he acknowledges that 80
percent of the medical
school students he surveyed said they were against
such forms of human
genetic engineering, and that public opinion polls
show equally dramatic
opposition. He could have noted, as well, that
nearly forty countries —
including Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India,
Japan, and South Africa
— have adopted socially responsible policies
regulating the new human
genetic technologies. They allow genetic research
(including stem cell